SIR M. HICKS-BEACH ON THE VICTORIAN QUESTION.

Timaru Herald, Volume XXX, Issue 1477, 16 June 1879, Page 3

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH ON THE VICTORIAN QUESTION.

(From the Australian Register.) Sir Michael Hicks-Beach has forwarded to the Marquis of Normanby his reply to the appeals of the Victorian Embassy. A copy of the despatch has been handed to Mr Berry, and the chief points of the answer have been communicated by telegram to the Governor of "Victor^ who has authorised the publication of the epitome m the Press. Without any disrespect to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, who has done all that any reasonabla person could expect him to do under the circumstances, the reply seems a poor equivalent for the £5000 which . it was estimated the Embassy would co?t. ! This of course is not the fault of Sir Michael Hicks-Beach ; it is rather the ; fault of those eminent politicians who were beguiled into sanctioning the wildgoose chase which Mr Berry was so 1 anxious to undertake. The full text of the message from Mr i Berry will be found below. It may fairly i be assumed that m giving an outline of such a lengthy official document he natui rally gives prominence to those points which he regards as being of the greatest ; importance. Except that the information ■ is more ample, the message to the Yic- , torian Government does not differ materi- ; ally from those received by us from our i own correspondents. The Secretary of i State for the Colonies does not interfere — he does not promise to interfere. He ' advises, and his advice is upon the whole ) not only sound but appropriate to the ) circumstances. j^Tho simple upshot of the - matter is that if Mr Berry follows the i counsel of the Ceesar to whom he had , appealed he will now have to do by ; constitutional means what he shirked i m 1877, and what he tried to force ' by unfair measures m 1878. The whole i battle has, m short, to be fought de novo, r with, we should hope, this difference, i that both parties are tired of the struggle, - and will therefore approach the existing t difficulty with a sincere desire to bring r about an equitable settlement. Mr Berry I has played every card m his coercive l game, except carrying out his threat of r separation. And it is to be hoped he l will now see he wisdom of trying back, f and approaching a difficult and 3 important subject m a grave cons stitutional manner, and not m the heat % of personal feeling, and of prejudices b magnified by party considerations, and 1 by an ill-directed ambition. The full : text of the despatch will be looked for f with peculiar interest, not only m Vie- - toria, but m the other colonies as well. , The hasty adoption of such a step as an - appeal to the Imperial Legislature is a eon- , fession of failure and of weakness, which " oasts a slur upoa the oolony resorting s to it, and should hope it will never be ; repeated. Whatever may be the contents of the , communication it is quite certain, we re- - peat, that it holds out no threat as to the 9 future. We are almost ashamed that b there should be any necessity for saying a that Sir Michael Hicks-Beach is too - sensible of his responsibility to seek to a coerce one branch of the Legislator* of a

country by any such undignified and un constitutional course. The despatch t< the Governor does not dictate or ordei or threaten. It does not even, it woulc seem, except m the way of reviewing various schemes, deal with the general question of Upper Houbo reform. It does what Sir Michael Hicks-Beach said, m the despatch received from him before the last session of Parliament closed, he would be prepared to do under certain conditions. It tenders advice as to the means of getting out of the present difficulty. The suggestions are not remarkably brilliant, it must be admitted. We have grave doubts whether, if acted upon, they would be altogether effective ; but, we repeat, they are the best that could be expected under the circumstances. So far, as we have frequently pointed out, no direct appeal has been made to the country. At the last general election m Victoria the subject of reform was not at all the chief question submitted to the electors. Hence the first step to be taken is to place the direct issue before the country. This is one ot the suggestions m the despatch of the Secretary for the Colonies. On the voice of the country being given m favor of reform, the next rational Btep iB that both Houses should endeavor to give effect to it by agreeing to some feasible scheme for accomplishing that object. This, too, is a step that has not been taken, and it is one which Mr Berry distinctly refused to take last year. His sole aim was_ to coerce the Council and to ignore its right to be considered m the discussion of the question. If the subject ia approached by both Chambers m a fair spirit there is no reason why it should not be satisfactorily settled. The plan hitherto adopted by Mr Berry has been such as must trtnd to provoke hostility, and cause the Council to be more persistent m its claims than it «therwise would be. The following is the full text of the message sent by Mr Berry to the Government, and furnished to us by Sit Bryan O'Loghlen, giving a summary of SirM. Hicks-Beach'a despatoh to His Excellency the Governor : — Lotidon, May 6. In the firtt four paragraphs Sir Michael Hicks-Beach states the case, and then be proceeds to say that a better definition of the powers of tho two Houses is required. He expresses the belief that no party m Viotoria desires to abolish the Legislative Council, or deprive it of tbo powers which properly belong to Second Chambers. He condemns the extreme view of tho position of the Council held by that body, and refers to the recent differences between the two Houses as being, like most of those wiiich preceded it, connected with the ultimate control of the finance*. He expressed his opinion that this difficulty could not arifo if the two Houses were quid.'d m this matter, as m others, by the practice of the Imperial Parliament — the Legislative Council following the practice of the House of Lords and iho Assembly tliat of the House of Commons. Tho Assembly, like the House of Commons, would claim and m practice exercise the right of granting aids and supplies to the Crown, also of limiting tho matter, manner, measure, and time of such grants, and of bo fornrng Bills of Supply that those rights should ba maintained inviolate. He expresses the opinion tbut tho Legislative Council should refrain from any step so injurious to the public service as tho rejection of an Appropriation Bill, and he recommends the adoption of a joint Standing Order of legislation. Then, after recommending moderation and mutual forbearance, the despatch proceeds — " When, however, it shall be felt that the respective positions of the two Houses m matters of taxation and appropriation can only be denned by an amendment of the Constitution Act, every dissolution of Parliament should apply to the Council a* well as to the Assembly." With respect to finality of ordinary legislation, Sir Michael Hicks-Beach does not like to admit that the Legislative Council of Victoiia wi 1 not, like similar bodies m other great colonies, without any stringent measures, recognise its constitutional position, and to transact its business that the wißheß of the people when clearly and repeatedly expressed shall ultimately prevail, und bo remove any necessity for Imperial legislation. The time recently afforded for reflection should also aid m the sitisfactory solution. Should this hope, however, not be realised tho action of Her Majesty's Government must to a degree depend upon the circumstances which may then exist; but Sir Michael Hicks-Beach thinks this is a condition precedent to Imperial interference. There must ba a refusal to counsel (coincide?) with the Assembly m some reasonnblo proposal for regulating the relations of the two Houses m financial matters, and the persistency m such refusal after the proposals of the Assembly have been submitted to the constituencies and approved by them, and again sent up by the Assembly for the consideration of the Legislative Council.